TR Memescape

Do you know what the most hilarious thing about TR is? It's that there are people who flip out whenever you suggest punishing anyone for anything, on a fucking message board with a written bill of rights, democratic control of the administration, and an almost universal right of appeal. lol

It's true. We do. You don't. You think you do, but you don't even know what evidence is. You think that a persuasive hypothesis is evidence that that hypothesis is correct. You don't test your hypotheses against data. In other words, you don't look for the evidence that supports a hypothesis.

You basically go around with your eyes shut to anything you don't want to see.

So let's dig into this a bit shall we? I think that I base my views on "evidence" ... you think I don't but you think YOU do ... and so on ... so let's find out ...

changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.

Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.

which great. That it is because it means we have a way of clearly distinguishing whether the deviations from the 1:1 line are due to changes over time in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios or due to errors in count date.

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratio changes, as we agree, any sample of given count-date should deviate from the 1:1 line by approximately the same amount.

However, IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, whether because the counter interpreted non-annual layers as annual, or missing layers, or finding tree ring samples that have been overlapped that should not have been overlapped, then we should have a big spread of radiocarbon dates for any given count-date.

And another way of putting that is:

IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratio changes, then the CURVES of count-date plotted against radiocarbon date should be tend to be the same, regardless of the dataset - the CURVES should AGREE.

Whereas IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, the CURVES should NOT AGREE.

And of course, famously, what the data show is this:

Even more impressively, perhaps, is the extraordinary agreement between dendro curves and curves obtained from CORAL, which forms annual bands by quite a different process:

THAT is why the radiocarbon calibration curves are such a challenge to YEC and Brown's model. They do not ASSUME that there either WAS, or WAS NOT a Global Flood. They are based on data that MEASURE how much radiocarbon dates given by the formula when N0 is set at a constant value equal to its value in modern times DEVIATE from dates given by other dating methods.

And while you might well mistrust those other dating methods (counters may have missed varves, or added varves, or the varves may not be TRUE annual varves, or tree rings might not be made annually, or coral might not have an annual life cycle, or polar snow might not melt at the surface more than once a year, or matched tree cores might not really match up, or whatever), the clincer is that despite all those POTENTIAL sources of count-date error, the amount the radiocarbon dates for those disparate materials deviate from the 1:1 line is quite astonishingly close.

So YECs are left with the conundrum: WHY DO THOSE CURVE AGREE? If the disrepancy is due to errors in the count-date, why the same count-date errors for widely differing materials sourced from widely different regions, and produced by widely different processes?

No, how about we take the evidence of those radiocarbon calibration datasets as an example, Dave. They are clear evidence that the earth is at least 50,000 years old.

And that's not even including Lake Kalksjon.

You've been badgering from that evidence for weeks now. Time you took a look.

^^^^^^

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Calling this now: Dave learned that one of his neighbors' goats came down with something, and now he's trying to goad us into comparing his goats with his neighbors so he can say "gotcha"! and gloat.

Dave. Come on. "Different angles in the canyon" didn't work back then; what makes you think this trick will?

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

If I want to have a group discussion taking an objective look at a general question like "what constitutes evidence", it would be pretty dumb to start with "Let's take my toenails for example..."It would make a lot more sense to look into some area where all have equal access to publicly available information.Like, for instance, 14C calibration curves.

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

"Good luck with that"? Is this an admission that you're going to completely ignore the C14 curves then? Despite this being data that everyone has equal access to? You know, because the rest of us don't have any information about your goats, or your neighbour's goats other than what you decide to tell us.

Don't be sad, dave. Sure, your trick didn't work, but you can always gloat about the fact that one of your neighbors' goats are sick, on the other thread. Go ahead. Have a blast.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

If I want to have a group discussion taking an objective look at a general question like "what constitutes evidence", it would be pretty dumb to start with "Let's take my toenails for example..."It would make a lot more sense to look into some area where all have equal access to publicly available information.Like, for instance, 14C calibration curves.

I see. So there are no people with goats in your area? Surprising. I would not have guessed that.

Meanwhile, if you would like to point me to a carbon-14 lab in Kansas City, I would be glad to stop by and talk to those folks. maybe I could get a tour. I would enjoy that.

In fact, there are two goats on the farm where I live. ( I'm sure I've told you this before. You must not read very carefully).I even feed them treats now and then.By your stated criteria (TLAR) I declare them to be in Perfect Health.Apparently your system is no better than mine.

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Do you think the evident (TLAR!) Perfect Health of "my" goats constitutes evidence relevant to the identity of the person feeding them, or the efficacy of de-worming meds?

Or what?

I think you can evaluate the health of your neighbors goats simply by interviewing them. you could ask them things like "do they ever have runny poop?" Or "do they ever get worms?" Or "do you ever have to give them worm medicine?". to me, their testimony would count as "evidence"